Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
the government, that creates a backlash and they go up. i wonder if that's how you think about it or that's how the hisry played out. >> what impresses me is americans have been more open to revenue raising and tax increases. the period i study is the post war period in the united states, between the '40s and '70s. states were facing fiscal pressures. they raised taxes. this is republican governors and lawmakers, democratic governors and lawmakers. they found that individuals, you know, the voters, the taxpayers were willing to retain those taxes when put on the ballot. there's an equilibrium, you can go too far either direction. americans are actually quite happy with using revenue to solve the budget impasses. i think we have gotten out of practice, politicians in particular. >> can i add something? it's an interesting point, then at the federal level, what's fascinating is it did you want matter how high top marginal race has been in the last 50 years or 60 years. the ability of the federal government to actually collect more revenue as a share of gdp has been fairly constant. so there's thi
and our government regulating this. you talk about deep water drilling. now, that's federal, because that's federal water and you need federal permission and follow federal regulations. but the fracking debate is difficult because its state-run for the most part. every state environmental agency has control over each state which is why you see a lot of discussion about the marcellus in new york where a lot are up in arms and really care about the environment to a certain degree, and you don't see that much in texas in the eagle ford and in the hainesville and other areas in texas because texas is a more happy kind of fracking state which has a lot easier -- >> intense pressure on state governments to grab what economic boom they can when they can, which is a lot more difficult to resist. >> it adds to the difficulty of getting a unified sort of trust going in terms of the technology itself, because each state looks at it differently. >> my sense is your position is this can be done safely and largely is done safely now. obviously there are exceptions to that. are there standardized rules
medicare age is a bad idea. first of all, really, what it is is a shift of cost from the federal government to employers, seniors and states. in fact, because medicare is cheaper for beneficiaries, it's increasing. a president who ran on lowering national health care cost, it was one of the reasons why we have the affordable care act. it's when you increase the costs for everybody, and we'll cut out hundreds of thousands of seniors. the seniors are the hardest to ensure. you are raising costs of the medicare program, shifting costs to employers because they have to shift costs. it's making us less competitive. i don't understand -- >> what they are saying, what the signal the white house and its allies on this front would be sending out there is they say jonathan wrote this, there's important symbolic value. >> nonsense. >> but, let me -- the point i want to make here is, this is what they say. i wonder how we got into this mess in the first place. >> if we are talking political and efforts to send out messages, this will only create the kind of reaction we need to shoot this idea down. if
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)